|
Snide Advertising
An
article in the February 18th AdAge.com newsletter, titled "Snide
Advertising is Bad for Business and Society," decries the trend
toward "sarcastic" and "malicious" advertising.
With
examples such as the FedEx "Dean, I need you to continue not
living up to your résumé" ad, which you might
have seen, author Richard Rapaport shows how pervasive this trend
is. "Take the culture's most facile minds, challenge them to
pry cash from an increasingly tapped-out audience, and what do you
get?" Rapaport asks. "Commercials built on sadism, on
derision, on one-upsmanship—in a word, 'snide.'"
Rapaport
is right. This trend is bad for business. So why does it happen?
First
of all, let's not credit ad agency creatives with being "the
culture's most facile minds." The advertising that major agencies
practice is still based on the flawed notion that "brute force"
wins the hearts, minds, and wallets of consumers. Snide is used
because agency creatives (and their complicit clients) mistakenly
believe that their goal is to "cut through the clutter."
No, the goal is to create ads that blend with all other contacts
the customer has with the company doing the advertising, in order
to create a connection that encourages the customer to be more involved
with that company and its products.
If
these minds were so facile, they wouldn't miss, so completely, the
point of what they are doing. Or, in a more cynical vein, we could
say they know what they are doing, but are more interested in creating
clever advertising than in helping their clients' businesses.
Advertising
is a sick business. And it isn't just for the oft-mentioned reason
that "consumers are using so many more media outlets—the
Internet, hundreds of TV stations, thousands of publications."
It
is because people just don't buy this way anymore. Customers—your
customers—are scrutinizing, savvy, discerning, and self-reliant.
They look beyond your promises, and consider every interaction with
your company as a chance to evaluate you.
Snide
advertising isn't only snide. It is anachronistic.
Steve Yastrow posted this on 02/26/08.
Super Bowl Rant
Late
January always brings, along with the cold weather, news stories
about Super Bowl advertising. We hear how Super Bowl advertising
is a "no-brainer" because of the audience size, and how
advertisers will benefit from "all the buzz."
I
disagree with just about all of this news. In this post I will answer
the seven most common reasons people think Super Bowl advertising
is a great marketing opportunity:
It's the only time you can reach so many people at one time.
A Super Bowl advertiser gets extra value because people are interested
in being entertained by the commercials.
But it worked for (insert company name here).
They must know what they are doing if they are spending so much
money.
You
have to be there if your competitors are.
It's ok if you're a big enough brand and can afford it.
It burnishes a company's image, and can even increase a stock price.
If
you've purchase a 30-second spot for this year's game, prepare to
be upset with me.It's the only time you can reach so many people
at one time.
My
first question: Why is it better to reach more people at one time?
As the size of an advertising audience increases, you are also reaching
many people who are not interested in your product. One of the big
Super Bowl advertising stories this year is that 45% of the 90 million-person
audience is expected to be female. Because of this, brands like
Tide (P&G) and Sunsilk (Unilever) are buying Super Bowl ads
focused on female buyers. Ok, but that means they will also be reaching
about 50 million disinterested males, at about 3 cents each. That's
a lot of pennies.
We
live in an age of smart consumers who are not easily sold. A rule
for this marketplace: The more people you try to talk to at one
time, the less effectively you communicate with each individual
person. If you spread your marketing communications a mile wide
and an inch deep, you run the risk of creating only superficial
connections with customers.
A
Super Bowl advertiser gets extra value because people are interested
in being entertained by the commercials.
What is this all about, the Academy Awards or investments in improving
business performance? People rate the ads on their entertainment
value, when the only real value, the one that should be sought,
is how well they drive business results. And let's be clear about
something: Just because you entertain me, doesn't mean I will buy
your product. Listen to people talk Monday morning after the big
game—someone will be talking about an ad he likes, laughing
uncontrollably as he drinks his coffee, spilling it all over his
tie. Then he will stop, and say, "I can't remember what the
ad was for, but it was funny."
Entertainment
and cleverness do not necessarily translate to purchase behavior,
even if they create a smile.
But it worked for (insert company name here).
Yes,
some Super Bowl ads work. Putting all your chips on Red 14 at the
roulette table in Vegas works once in a while, too. But Super Bowl
ads and long-shot gambling bets don't work most of the time. And
there is no formula; Super Bowl ad success cannot be predicted,
and it can't be duplicated. It is a Black Swan.
They
must know what they are doing if they are spending so much money.
Don't
suspect that there is a lot of science going on here. There may
be some Excel spreadsheet-based pseudo-science, but you should not
imagine that companies are analyzing these investments the way they
analyze other multi-million dollar investments.
In
reality, many Super Bowl ad placements are "vanity buys,"
to quote a long-time ad agency media department veteran whom I know.
In place of thoughtful analysis there is a lot of groupthink and
forced rationale taking place.
You
have to be there if your competitors are.
One
of the first rules of advertising is that you should never make
a specific advertising decision because your competitors are doing
it. I've given many CEOs this advice: If one of your people tries
to rationalize an advertising effort by saying, "We need to
be there because our competitors are there," you should not
approve the advertising effort. It is almost surely a bad idea,
and you should ask for a better reason.
It's
ok if you're a big enough brand and can afford it.
Like
any risky investment, it should only be made if it can be lost.
If you have a big enough marketing budget, and the Super Bowl can
be a small piece of your overall effort, complementing hundreds
of other touchpoints with customers that blend to create brand harmony,
and if you will not be hurt if you lose your total investment, than
you may be able to get away with it.
But
recognize that it is a risk—a huge risk you are taking with
your company's capital, a risk that has a high chance of producing
a negative return.
It
burnishes a company's image, and can even increase a stock price.
I
encourage any marketing executive who wants to make that argument
to go to his company's board of directors and stockholders and make
it. Shareholders are the least likely to win from Super Bowl advertising.
In fact if we think about who wins with Super Bowl advertising,
we see that the ad agencies win, the networks win, and the NFL wins.
We viewers also win, because we get all this free entertainment
in the form of 30 second movies; we will laugh, even if we don't
buy. It's the shareholders of the companies paying for the ads who
tend to lose, because their management has made a very risky investment,
with a high chance of failure. But these investments have been done
under the guise of a great opportunity.
Steve Yastrow posted this on 02/01/08.
Worm
In The Apple
I'm
using Firefox's new "tabbed browsing" feature, which enables
me to have multiple start pages every time I launch the browser.
Each page loads, and can be accessed by a tab at the top.
One
of my start pages has been—until 5 minutes ago—apple.com.
I've had apple.com as one of my start pages so I can access Apple
information and, I admit, because I feel affinity for the brand.
But I recently started hearing voices every time I fired up Firefox,
and I quickly discovered it was because Apple's start page now automatically
plays their "I'm a Mac, I'm a PC" TV ads.
This
is pretty irritating, so I've removed apple.com from my array of
start pages. The lesson: It's never a good idea to become so proud
of your advertising that you think people will enjoy seeing it when
they don't have to. It's like when people make their guests watch
boring home videos.
Steve Yastrow posted this on 05/15/06.
"Side
effects may include ..."
I
don't think pharmaceutical advertisers should be required to include
medical disclaimers in their television commercials.
You
know what I'm talking about—"Side effects may include
nausea, bloating and diarrhea ..." "Be sure to tell your
doctor if ..."Do not take this medication if ..."
Requirements
to include these warnings are based on the fallacy that the advertising
will sell the product. The advertising is a small piece of the sell,
and the doctors and product literature, which are also part of the
sell, can fill in the warnings. Why should the rest of us have to
listen to that unpleasant information? After all, a campaign might
be successful and still have 99%+ of viewers not in the target audience.
So don't make the rest of us listen to that stuff. The video of
happy patients is insufferable enough.
I'm
all for protecting patients. But let's not inflate the power of
the ads—which don't function in a vacuum. Let the doctor do
the dirty work when only the interested patient is listening. (If
he can't be trusted to do that he shouldn't be trusted to prescribe
the medication. TV commercials do not exist to protect us from doctors.)
Steve Yastrow posted this on 04/03/06.
Strange
Choice
A
current commercial for Just For Men hair coloring features the music
of this Jackson 5 song, which we've all heard thousands of times:
Ain't
nothin' like the real thing, baby
Ah—the
difference between saying something and being understood.
This
was, most likely, the rationale Just For Men used to justify the
choice of song: "Our product is so genuine and authentic that
people will assume it's the real color of a person's hair."
But
I'm sure I'm not the only one who hears, "This product ain't
nothin' like the real thing."
Steve Yastrow posted this on 03/12/06.
Display
of self-confidence
Last
line of voiceover in a commercial for Grape Nuts Trail Mix Crunch
Cereal:
Tastes
so good you won't believe it's Grape Nuts!
Steve Yastrow posted this on 02/16/06.
Message
to Ad Execs
John
Stratton, chief marketing officer at Verizon Wireless, spoke at
a gathering of 400 ad agency and entertainment executives last week.
His message: He is not happy about spending $1 billion a year on
"overvalued, inefficient, rapidly eroding mass market advertising
platforms that continue to under deliver."
He
offered 8 points of warning to the audience, which are included
in the extended entry. (Reprinted from adage.com) Do you agree?John
Stratton's 8 points of warning:
1.
Your clients are absolutely in trouble and they are looking for
you to save them.
2.
What you've been selling for the last fifty years no longer works.
3.
Major marketing money is going to be in motion in the next decade
and no one really yet understands exactly where it will land, if
it even will land, or if it will just disappear altogether.
4.
Before they figure out where to put their money, your marketer clients
will hire and fire agency after agency, seeking someone, anyone,
who can tell them where they might go next.
5.
CMO average tenure, already famously brief, will get even shorter
as CEOs begin to recognize how much money they are blowing on antiquated
media plans.
6.
Your marketer clients are really seeking one thing and one thing
only: An audience for the message they are trying to convey to the
market place.
7.
But your clients actually need more than just an audience. One of
the consequences of the evolution of our media delivery systems
over the last ten years is that the audience you do ultimately find
is much less receptive to the message you're trying to send. They
are absolutely armed and ready to get to the content they want while
avoiding the message you are trying to implant within it.
8.
They need much more than an audience. They need an audience that
cares about what they have to say. They need their message to be
relevant to the audience they are saying it to.
Steve Yastrow posted this on 02/13/06.
A
Billion Is Not a Billion
Steve
Rushin's column in Sports Illustrated this week is titled "A
Billion People Can Be Wrong." He quotes a number of publications
that claim the Super Bowl will be watched by 1 billion people in
225 countries. He then provides stats that show only 93 million
people watched last year, with 98% of them in North America. As
he points out, we're only 907 million people short of a billion.
Why
is the Super Bowl such a hype magnet? Why are the advertising rates
and the viewer stats so inflated? (Maybe this is where football's
steroid use can be found). Yes, 93 million is an awful lot, but
it sure isn't a billion.
Steve Yastrow posted this on 02/03/06.
Tulipmania & Football
With
one week to go, Superbowl advertising is nearly sold out at $2.5
million for 30 seconds.
I'm
in the middle of a great book, Michael Pollan's Botany of Desire,
which gives us an interesting take on what might cause this kind
of absurd spending. We've always looked at the domestication of
plants and animals as a symbol of humanity's power over other species.
Pollan turns this idea on its head, showing how four species of
plants have exploited different human desires to help them thrive.
The four plants and the related desires are the apple (sweetness),
tulip (beauty), marijuana (intoxication), and potato (control).
We have to ask, who is the domesticator, and who is the domesticated?
Makes me think of Superbowl advertising. (Read on ...)The Tulip
chapter describes the Tulipmania craze in Holland during 1635-1637,
where prices for tulip bulbs and futures contracts on these bulbs
rose to unbelievable levels. In Pollan's world, this isn't only
a story of human greed and the non-wisdom of crowds, but it's also
a story of how the tulip was able to take advantage of a human need.
The Dutch, constrained by Calvinist morals and living in a drab,
monochromatic environment, were vulnerable to the tulip's brilliant
beauty. This gave tulip genes an opportunity to replicate themselves
in great numbers. Tulipmania was not only good for the speculators
who were able to sell and collect, but was also really good for
the tulip.
My
contention: Although a few advertisers may benefit from Superbowl
advertising, the only sure winner is the broadcaster. Let's not
kid ourselves about the real value in Superbowl advertising. The
broadcasters have cashed in on marketers' need for notoriety (notice
I didn't write the word "sales").
The
bursting of the Tulipmania bubble started small and exploded quickly.
When one seller couldn't get his price, the word spread and the
market went into a rapid collapse. Ultimately, this was very good
for the economy in Amsterdam. One day, in the not too distant future,
it's possible that the broadcaster of the Superbowl won't be able
to get its price and that market could collapse also. That might
be the best thing for Superbowl advertisers.
Steve Yastrow posted this on 01/29/06.
The Emperor's New Homepage
Last
September college student Alex Tew launched a new business to fund
his college education. It was called "The Million Dollar Homepage."
His scheme was to sell advertising space on a 1 million pixel homepage
to advertisers for $1 per pixel.
Believe
it or not, The Million Dollar Homepage is sold out. Most of the
ads are tiny (the minimum was a 100 pixel ad), so the result is
a visual cacophony of banner ads like none you have ever seen. If
it's true that the average American is exposed to 5000 advertising
and promotional messages per day, you can get your minimum daily
requirement just by going to The Million Dollar Homepage every morning.
I
can easily imagine the thoughts and discussions people concocted
to convince themselves to make this marketing investment. "Just
think of the PR value." "We'll capture so many eyeballs."
"It'll be so hot, we gotta be there."
How anyone could think this is great marketing is beyond me. It
represents the worst of clutter culture, where the customer is so
overwhelmed by noise that nobody (except Alex Tew) can possibly
get something out of it.
And, of course, most of the ads it has attracted are pretty junky.
Sure, the Times of London is an advertiser, but its ad is in the
vicinity of one for "Busty Mousepads" and another one
for "Revenge," where a mouseover reveals this copy: "Get
revenge on ANYONE quickly—send them a (fake) poo today!"
Great proximity for the Times. There are, of course, the obligatory
ads that are nothing but a micro picture of an attractive woman.
Put your cursor over one and it will reveal "STRANGE DISEASES—Bizarre
Medical Pictures." Another female picture brings forth the
copy "Medical writer/pharmaceutical and sales training."
Wow, now that's effective advertising.
So
Alex Tew seemed like the only winner, until some extortionists threatened
to hack his site if he didn't pay them. He refused and they shut
down his site for 5 days, and now he's being sued by advertisers
whose ads weren't viewable during that time. Yes, these litigants
are just looking for more "PR value."
Steve Yastrow posted this on 01/20/06.
Badvertising:
Ameritrade
The
Ameritrade TV spot opens with a 15 year old girl coming into the
room to ask her dad for money for some new jeans. Dad asks about
the jeans, and as he hears about them, his investment antennae go
up. "What kind of jeans?" She tells him the name of the
brand. "Are they designer jeans?" "Yes," answers
the daughter. "Are they popular?" "Everybody's got
them." "Everybody's got them?" "Yep."
Dad's
brow furrows. He sits down on the couch and opens his laptop. Asks
his daughter the name of the jeans again. Buys 100 shares. Sits
back looking satisfied. She then, predictably, has to remind him
to give her the money to buy a pair of the jeans. Cute.
Isn't
this just the problem with amateur online investing, that by the
time "everybody" has bought the jeans a ton of vigilant
investors will have bought the stock, and the poor Ameritrade customer
will have to buy high and sell low? Doesn't this look like it is
advertising designed by an amateur investor?
Steve Yastrow posted this on 10/28/05.
Badvertising:
Depend
A
current television ad for Depend Undergarments talks about how convenient
Depends are to take with you during a busy day, and there is an
image of a woman popping a package into her briefcase. Before she
closes the lid, you notice that the package is really easy to see,
and the word "Depend" screams out at you. The image doesn't
make sense—most people don't want to share their personal
maladies at the boardroom table when they open their attaché
to pull out another copy of the monthly reports. Then, at this point
in the commercial, the voiceover says, "And our brand new package
is designed to be easy to find on store shelves." Yeah, and
easy to spot every time I reach into my briefcase for another Altoid.
Adult
incontinence is, of course, nothing to be ashamed of. But the second
most important reason people use Depends is so nobody else knows
they have this problem. (Don't you dare ask, "What's reason
number 1?") This is another instance of the advertiser being
so proud of their accomplishment ("We have a new package!")
that they have to tell everyone, even if it's the wrong message.
I
took a look at the Depend website and the new package is promoted
prominently at the top of the page. The copy says, "The discreet
packages are designed to help you find the product quickly."
Yeah, that's discreet—the number one name in incontinence
protection is written in bold letters, with a picture of adult underwear
right below it. If the strategy is discreet, then go discreet. But
don't assume your customers will accept a dissonant message just
because you say it.
Steve Yastrow posted this on 08/01/05.
Badvertising: Gibson Guitars
I
have been a guitar player for 34 years. I love it. I know guitars.
I can often tell what brand of guitar is being played when I hear
it. I fell in love with Gibson guitars listening to Duane Allman
& Dicky Betts on The Allman Brothers Live at Fillmore East back
in my high school days.
The
latest issue of Time magazine carries a Father's Day ad for Gibson
Guitars, encouraging people to buy dad the gift of a guitar on Father's
Day. Is this a good marketing idea?
Some
of my friends play guitar. But most don't. In fact, even though
guitar is one of the most popular musical instruments, the actual
number of players is very small relative to the population. Can
an ad in Time magazine be a good investment for Gibson? Or, is Gibson
deluding themselves that "getting their name out" in Time
will be good for their business?
Steve Yastrow posted this on 06/03/05.
FCC
Worries
FCC
commissioner Jonathon Adelstein spoke out this week about the increasing
commercialization of media, decrying subtle advertising product
placements and news "experts" who are really being paid
by sponsors. He spoke of the need for clearer notice to consumers
when news is "fake" or products show up on TV in exchange
for payment.
What
do you think? Should there be stricter guidelines revealing sponsorship?
Or, should consumers make the call, by either watching (or not watching)
the shows or buying (or not buying) the products being pitched?
Steve Yastrow posted this on 05/27/05.
BP Crosses A Line
Global
energy company BP has instituted an "ad-pull" policy for
print publications that print what the company calls "objectionable
editorial coverage."
The
company's "zero tolerance" policy says that publications
must inform BP in advance if an issue contains any coverage which
violates a series of directives laid out by BP. Offensive coverage
can include "any editorial that contains fuel/oil or energy
news text or visuals," according to a story on adage.com today.
It would be bad enough if BP wanted to threaten publications if
they print negative stories about BP, but to threaten to pull ad
schedules if publications run general stories on energy is beyond
belief.
I'm
thinking about our recent discussions about the marketing of the
global warming issue, and Tom's "Lee vs. Jeff" post from
yesterday, comparing how the CEO of GE is facing energy issues head-on
while the CEO of ExxonMobil is in denial. If BP is able to do something
like this with impunity, we should all worry about the integrity
of both their advertising message and the editorial content of any
publication in which they advertise.
Steve Yastrow posted this on 05/24/05.
Selling (Out) Broadway: Reprise
Last
month we had a lively discussion here about how the Neil Simon musical,
Sweet Charity, has agreed to a script change to promote the tequila
Grand Centanario. Our discussion noted that most media stories talked
about the deal between Jose Cuervo, who markets Grand Centanario,
and the Broadway promoter, with very little attention to whether
any consumers will be motivated to buy the tequila.
As
an update to this story, the Tom Peters Wire Service lists an article
from today's Ad Age. And, here's a recent story from the New York
Times. The Times story also discussed how Hormel Foods Corporation's
Spam is a sponsor of the Monty Python hit show, Spamalot. For obvious
reasons, I find this easier to swallow (the sposorship, not the
Spam) than Neil Simon agreeing to change "A double Scotch,
sir?" to "Grand Centanario, the tequila?"
Steve Yastrow posted this on 05/24/05.
Disappearing Pensions
Yesterday,
United Airlines announced yesterday that they are going to default
on $3.2 Billion in pension payments to prevent bankruptcy.
Also
this week, I noticed that United has reinvigorated their feel-good,
animated ad campaign, in which we follow United travelers around
on their business trips. In a spot I saw this week, a United passenger
carries a rose with him on planes, through client meetings, in cabs—and
ultimately home to his grey-haired mom.
Is
running these ads on the same media that are reporting on the pension
default, at the same time, a good idea? Will the ads have 1) a positive
effect, neutralizing some of the bad publicity from the pension
default, 2) no effect, because no one will notice the ads if they're
hearing about bankruptcy and pension defaults, or 3) a negative
effect when people say, "Why are you spending all this money
on ads designed to help the business long-term when you can't pay
your employees their pensions and may go bankrupt now?
What
would you think of the ads if you were a United employee?
Steve Yastrow posted this on 05/11/05.
Selling
(Out) Broadway
Today's
(4/23) New York Times carried an editorial describing the latest
venue in which advertising product placements have shown up—the
Broadway musical. The musical Sweet Charity carries plugs for a
brand of tequila, Grand Centanario.
There
is a sign showing the product in one scene, and the product name
has been inserted into dialogue. The original script from the 1966
musical has a waiter ask a customer, "a double Scotch again,
sir?" The line has been changed to "Grand Centario, the
tequila?" The Times bemoans this development, acknowledging
the commercial nature of Broadway theater, but wishing the stage
itself could remain ad free.
What
do you all think? Is this bad?
One
thing that's on my mind—Most discussions of product placement
focus on the advertiser's strategy and on the transaction between
the advertiser and the provider of media placement. What about the
viewer/customer? Is it just assumed that if they see it they will
buy? Will they? These discussions are just variations on old-time
advertising discussions, which assume that customers will but your
product if you interrupt them enough times. Relating back to the
Times story, will any more Grand Centario be sold due to selling-out
of Sweet Charity?
Steve Yastrow posted this on 04/24/05.
Badvertising:
Wachovia
Wachovia
Securities has a series of ads that I find to be trite, and a waste
of money for them. The copy in these ads follows a pattern of "What
does X have in common with Y," where Y is some sort of financial
service.
I
just saw one that has a shot of a ship plowing through arctic ice.
The voiceover says, "What does an ice breaker have in common
with an investment bank? You need someone in the lead to crush all
obstacles."
Problems
with this ad: First, it's trite and simplistic. Second, even if
I believe that message, all it's done is tell me why investment
banks are valuable, not why Wachovia is special. Third, anyone who
makes decisions to select investment banks wouldn't learn anything
from, or be impressed by, an ad like this.
Another
case where the only winners are the ad agency and the media.
Steve Yastrow posted this on 04/19/05.
Badvertising:
FedEx
FedEx
has, for years, done great advertising. A new ad I saw this week
doesn't measure up, however.
A
confident looking, bearded Phil Knight-esqe CEO is sitting with
a bunch of people, outside in a beautiful mountain environment.
He says, "Thank you for coming to this offsite. I'm looking
for ideas to make our company better."
A
young girl, about junior high school age, is sitting in the circle
of adult workers. She says, "We can start sending all of our
packages with FedEx. Overnight, ground ... everything." The
CEO says, "Great. Thanks for coming. You can all go home now."
Oh.
So business is that simple? Just change the way you ship stuff?
And, the idea of young kids being smarter about business than adults
is so 1998.
Steve Yastrow posted this on 03/31/05.
Weak
Creative? Weak Interest.
Rance
Crain, editor in chief of AdAge, is usually a pretty savvy guy.
But in an editorial this week he really missed the mark. The editorial
was titled "The Mass Market is Not Dead. Weak Creative is the
Problem."
The
reason advertising is less effective these days is because of weak
creative? That's like claiming that the reason the stalker can't
get dates is because he wears an unfashionable trench coat.
Sure,
good ad creative is always better than bad ad creative. But in reality,
this only matters on the margins. The reason advertising is a less
effective way to win the hearts (and pocketbooks) of customers than
it once was is due more to the way customers think than it does
with the way ad agencies create.
Customers
don't react kindly to interruption-based marketing as they once
did. They look beyond promises and scrutinize all interactions with
a company and its products. If the entire set of experiences blends
to tell a great story, customers will be more interested. And, at
that point, great ad creative can make an (incremental) difference.
Advertising
is not the center of the marketing universe, Rance. Customers are.
Steve Yastrow posted this on 03/02/05.
Super
Bowl
If
you want to comment on Super Bowl ads, please do it here!
Steve Yastrow posted this on 02/06/05.
Badvertising:
Lincoln's Lusting Priest
This
may be one of the stupidest ads ever. Young & Rubicam created
a Super Bowl ad for the Lincoln Mark LT Truck/SUV in which a priest
finds car keys in the collection plate, goes outside the church
and finds the Lincoln. Then he starts caressing the SUV while a
song plays with the words, "Is it a sin, is it a crime, loving
you dear like I do?" As this is happening, a man shows up with
his five year old daughter, who apparently put the keys in the collection
plate. The priest returns the keys, breathes heavily, then you see
him putting the word "LUST" in big letters on the sign
outside the church.
Lincoln
has pulled the ad, but only after protest from the Survivors Network
of those Abused by Priests. I'm sure complaints from priests were
on the way also. In announcing the decision to pull the ad Ford's
statement said, "of course we had no intention of offending
anyone—and we are frankly surprised there is a negative reaction."
They're surprised? No, they're stupid. They are stupid for two reasons:
1) It's terribly offensive, to many people. 2) This ad wouldn't
sell anything.
You
can see the ad at adage.com. Here's an audio link.
Steve Yastrow posted this on 02/04/05.
Badvertising:
Logix
Driving
into Houston this evening from Geo Bush Airport ... I see a billboard
for a company called "Logix," presumably some sort of
IT services organization. The billboard copy read:
Our
CEO is a bigger geek than their CEO.
Gee
... I can't wait to hear more.
(2
miles later, I see a great billboard: It was for an animal shelter,
promoting pet adoption. There was a very cute picture of a cat,
looking right at you, with copy that read "It's ok. You can
come in and just take a look.")
Steve Yastrow posted this on 01/18/05.
How's
This Headline?
Over
the last few days we've had a great debate about a headline for
a "Dove Massage Beads" ad (see below). Here's a story
of another ad headline for your comments:
As
many of you know, the funeral home industry has gone through a period
of intense consolidation, with a handful of big companies taking
over mom & pop operations. Chicago Jewish Funerals is a new,
small, privately-held company that has done very well over the past
5 or so years since they appeared on the scene. Their brand messages
focus on the advantages of dealing with a smaller, local company
whose owners are members of the community.
They
recently ran an ad with this headline:
Big
corporations are part of our life.
Do
they need to be part of our death?
What
do you think of this one? (I'll reveal my opinion once we have some
comments.)
Steve Yastrow posted this on 01/08/05.
Badvertising
Candidate?
I
Don't Get It.Can someone explain this headline to me?
I
saw a small billboard over a train stairway today. It was for Dove
Massage Beads. There was a picture of a bottle of Dove Massage Beads
in the bottom right corner, with 50 or more purple spheres of various
sizes arrayed over the ad. The purple spheres presumably represent
beads of soap that massage your body.
The
headline on the ad read:
One
massage bead for every vanilla latte you've worn
Huh?
Steve Yastrow posted this on 01/06/05.
Badvertising:
El Pais of Spain
El
Pais, the largest circulation newspaper in Spain, wanted to promote
three free months of access to elpais.com. This ad, which shows
before and after pictures of the New York skyline labeled "NYC,
11-Sept-01" and "NYC, 12-Sept-01" respectively, (with
the obvious difference being the missing towers in the second picture)
was emailed to 50,000 people. It carries a headline which (translated)
reads: "A lot can happen in a day. Imagine what can happen
in three months."
'nuff
said.
Steve Yastrow posted this on 12/24/04.
Badvertising:
Inflight Eyeball Capturing
America
West Flight #6—Chicago to Phoenix. Altitude: 300 feet and
climbing. I bring my tray table down and see a picture of a handsome,
rugged guy in a workshirt, and realize that I'm looking at a Woolrich
ad. I'm in seat D. I look across the aisle to my wife in seat C
and see a Kenneth Cole ad. Next to her my daughter has Shick Quattro,
and by the window by twelve-year old son's tray table has a Jhane
Barnes ad. (Great targeting)
I
can imagine the pitch the ad agencies made to their clients about
this one: "You've got a captive audience." "We can
capture millions of eyeballs." "Potential customers can't
help but look at your ads—they'll even be able to see your
logo through their Sprite!." "Think of all of the impressions
you'll get on a three hour flight."
So
what?
Marketing
is not about jumping in front of your customers and shouting, "Hey,
look at me!" But the marketing world is drunk with the idea
that interrupting customers is the key to winning their love and
loyalty.
Imagine
if you were a sixteen-year-old boy, and you decided your best strategy
for winning the affection of a girl in your sophomore class would
be to lurk around corners so you could pop into her field of vision
as she walked by. Would it work? NO! So why should it work with
marketing?
Steve Yastrow posted this on 12/20/04.
Ethics
Would
you buy a used car from this ad exec?
A
new poll by the Gallup Organization showed that only 9% of people
rated the ethics of advertising professionals as "high"
or "very high." Ad execs scored higher than car salesman
(6%) and telemarketers (5%), but less than stockbrokers (12%). 36%
of people rated the ethics of ad professionals as "poor"
or "very poor," compared to only 27% last year.
So—what's
going on? Have they become less trustworthy, or are we just less
trusting?
Steve Yastrow posted this on 12/10/04.
Badvertising:
Quiznos (& AdAge)
On
February 9, 2004, Bob Garfield, ad critic for Advertising Age, wrote
a glowing review called "Dead Vermin Sell Quiznos Sandwiches,
And Both Spots Break Through The Clutter As Few Ads Do," in
which he raved about Quiznos' "Spongemonkeys" ad campaign.
The ads, which can be viewed via this link, show some sort of disgusting
animated rodents singing about Quiznos.
On
December 3, 2004, Ad Age reported that Quiznos was firing the Martin
Agency, the creators of the campaign.
How Garfield could have missed this one is beyond me. In his review
he reminded his readers that he had criticized Quiznos' previous
campaign, which featured a man sucking on a wolf's teat, as "unappetizing,
self-destructive and fundamentally unhinged ... the apotheosis of
irrelevance and agency self-indulgence," noting that he was
proved right. So how could he think that characters that look like
"animated mouse carcasses" (his words) would work any
better?
The
clue to his mistake is right there in the title of his review. He
thought the ads would "break through the clutter." Whenever
I hear this term, my advertising-cynicism antennae go up. The idea
that the key to great marketing is just to shout at your customers
for 30 seconds louder than your competitors are shouting is not
an accurate description of how the world works. The key to your
customers' love is not to act obnoxious enough that they can't help
but pay attention. Customers are way too discerning and scrutinizing
for that.
When
I hear like terms "break through the clutter" or "capturing
eyeballs" I get suspicious. It is hardly ever the answer. For
every Aflac duck or "I just saved money on my car insurance
by switching to Geico" there are a million—no, make that
100 million—ads that are barely noticed and, more importantly,
don't motivate customers to do anything.
Steve Yastrow posted this on 12/06/04.
I
Hate Spam, Redux
Love
your neighbor. Respect your fellow man. Yes, I generally feel that
way. But, let me tell you about a few people I don't like.
I
don't like Joseph Vickers, who wrote me "Re: Account # 4339Q."
I don't like Lindsey Dwyer, who wrote me about "Xanax-Valium-Cialis
Deals Here." And Dr. Felicia Quintero, MD, who also spammed
me about medications, should (if she actually existed) have her
medical license revoked. And I hope that Rae Hutchinson, who wants
to sell me a Rolex watch, has a major server crash today and can't
send 1 million emails tomorrow.
Steve Yastrow posted this on 10/25/04.
Quantifying
Negativity
According
to a report by the University of Wisconsin's Advertising Project
only 27% of presidential campaign ads shown on television by both
the Bush and Kerry campaigns were positive.
No,
you weren't just imagining it.
Steve Yastrow posted this on 10/14/04.
Merging
Ad Agencies Crushed Under Own Weight
WPP
Group, a mega-ad agency conglomerate is merging with (read: buying)
Grey Global for $1.5 billion.
My contention: Any ad agency this big can't do great marketing for
its clients and still make money. Being this big, there will be
an even bigger bias towards a brute force approach to marketing,
because mega-media commissions are necessary for survival.
Corollary:
The only way they can make money is if enough clients buy bad advice
from them.
Debate
me on this one!
Steve Yastrow posted this on 09/14/04
Badvertising:
Accenture
Accenture
claims that their ads featuring Tiger Woods are designed to reinforce
their promise to help clients become high-performance busineses.
The ads show Tiger Woods in different situations on the golf course
with the tagline "Go, Be a Tiger."
I
don't think the ads make this connection very well, and I think
that to most people it must look like a gratuitous exercise in celebrity
worship. (I'd bet big bucks that the contract between Tiger Woods
and Accenture includes guaranteed opportunities for Accenture executives
to meet and hang out with Tiger Woods.)
Somehow,
I don't think that the kinds of businesses Accenture wants as clients
will be motivated when told to "Be a Tiger."
What
do you think? When can a celebrity endorsement be a good idea to
support a business-to-business marketing effort?
Steve Yastrow posted this on 09/12/04.
Can
Somebody Do This for Sprint's Ads?
Not
sure you can believe what you hear in political ads? Check out factcheck.org,
a non-partisan site that exposes misleading campaign ads.
Check
out their report on how easy it is to get away with lying in political
ads.
Now,
about those cellphone ads ...
Steve Yastrow posted this on 09/08/04.
Badvertising:
Miller Lite
The
legend is that the Chicago Cubs are cursed, and can't win a championship.
This legend was reinforced last year when fan interference prevented
the Cubs from winning the National League title and going to the
World Series.
We Cub fans get pretty depressed about the Cubs inability to win,
and don't like talk of curses. So, explain the thinking behind this:
Miller Lite has a billboard over a building right across the street
from Wrigley Field's right field fence, visible from virtually all
seats in the park, with the headline: CURSE QUENCHER
Cub
fans I've talked to think this ad is really stupid. Is Miller saying
they have the power to make the Cubs win? As one fan put it to me,
"Who are they to talk about ending the so-called curse, when
they have their name ("Miller Park") on the stadium of
the Cubs' rivals, the Milwaukee Brewers, only 1 1/2 hours away up
Interstate 94."
Who
was asleep at the meeting when the ad agency got approval for this
one?
Steve Yastrow posted this on 08/29/04
Badvertising:
Century 21
Have
you seen the Century 21 ads where the real estate agent insists
on showing only ranch houses, even though the client said "no
ranches?"
We
are then told about "Century 21 Pledge #13: You will only see
houses you want to see."
Oh,
gee. That's compelling. Is there really a problem with real estate
agents showing you houses you don't want to see?
This
doesn't pass the "so what?" test. Century 21 has focused
on something people care about—seeing houses you want to see—at
the expense of communicating a meaningful point of difference. In
the spirit of "Delta Gets You There" they promise to deliver
the most basic, low-level benefits, and haven't told us anything
unique about themselves.
Steve Yastrow posted this on 08/23/04.
From
Common Sense to Swift Boats
Tom's
blog on Thomas Paine (2 entries down) is inspiring. ... It's a shame
to think that we've gone from Paine's Common Sense, which assumed
that Americans were smart and discerning, to this season's version
of political persuasion, built on smear ads that assume we are lazy,
superficial thinkers who can't discern when we're being duped. Message
to both sides: We can!
Steve Yastrow posted this on 08/22/04.
I Hate Spam
I
had a dream last night ... (OK, I didn't really have this dream,
but please imagine that I did. It makes a better story ...)
In
my dream it was the first day of "Worldwide I Hate Spam Week,"
in which people all over the globe unite to boycott companies who
invade their computers with email spam and pop-up ads, refusing
to buy their products for the entire week. There were well-publicized
lists of these companies, so everyone could see what products to
avoid.
Expedia
and Travelocity saw their bookings drop to zero. American Express
Blue not only saw new card enrollments plummet, transaction volume
became negligible. News media publicized these stories and many
others, adding momentum to the anti-spam movement.
Spontaneous
anti-spam rallies started happening concurrently all over the world.
Corporate communication departments scrambled to get their CEOs
on TV to pledge to end all unsolicited electronic marketing. It
became regular practice to avoid buying from any company that sent
you a spam, well after the week ended. The age of spam was coming
to an end ...
...
could it happen? Or are we stuck wading through this—the most
uncreative kind of marketing—for the rest of our lives?
Steve Yastrow posted this on 08/18/04.
Coca-Cola
in Jerusalem
After
arriving in Israel the other day, one of the first things I saw
in a newspaper was a full page ad by the Coca-Cola company thanking
the Israeli public for naming Coke as the #1 most recognized brand
in the country. My reaction: Who cares?
If
you've even been within 5 feet of my book, Brand Harmony, you know
I think that awareness is the most over-rated branding characteristic.
I'm much more interested in the depth of meaning people have for
products—and for other things—than I am interested in
whether people can recall a product name. Awareness is a much more
remote indicator of action than passion is.
Of
course people know Coke's name—duh! But in a place that is
full of passions, opinions, rich cultures, debates and, yes, zealotry,
it seems silly to waste time even acknowledging that lots of people
are aware of Coke. Wouldn't it be more interesting to know what
products are compelling, not just ubiquitous?
Steve Yastrow posted this on 07/28/04.
What
Were They Thinking?
Atkins
... great brand, right?
Have
you seen some of their latest TV commercials? Go to the Atkins site's
TV spot brag page and check out the Meet Chicks commercial.
What
were they thinking? (A great candidate for the Museum of Badvertising)
Steve Yastrow posted this on 07/13/04
|
